Super Size Me…The Documentary Film

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Ever seen Super Size Me? This guy, while being monitored and evaluated by three doctors, conducted an experiment where he ate McDonalds every day for one month. He gained 25 pounds, experienced severe liver problems, and gained 65 points on his cholesterol. The film also discusses school lunches, a law suit against McDonalds, marketing ploys, making choices and shared responsibility.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

People have to make the choice to eat right, it isn't a resturants fault if a person eats there every meal everyday and gians weight, people need to be smarter then that. They need to learn to make good food choices. Obviously fast food isn't it. Which is why I rarely eat it, and usually go for the grilled chicekn breast, no mayo. But today we had our 2 yr old grandson and took him for chicekn nuggets and I actually ate a burger, only the second one this year. And there won't be a third.
Wise food choices, and beibng responsible with our health is the key.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Within all the rhetoric is still motives, techniques of marketing, shared responsibility, accountability, examples of how especially children will choose from what is offered to them; how quickly that type of food caused major health concerns regardless of the extremity of the test many people do in fact feed that garbage to their children which grow up making it a regular part of their diet. Much more room for thought than just just getting caught up in rhetorical arguments.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Within all the rhetoric is still motives, techniques of marketing, shared responsibility, accountability, examples of how especially children will choose from what is offered to them; how quickly that type of food caused major health concerns regardless of the extremity of the test many people do in fact feed that garbage to their children which grow up making it a regular part of their diet. Much more room for thought than just just getting caught up in rhetorical arguments.

Click to expand...

It's that sort of entitlement mentality that is flushing the USA down the toilet.

Morbid obesity is caused by overeating. McDonald's doesn't force people to overeat. If all fast food establishments disappeared tomorrow, the rate of morbid obesity would not decline.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

It's that sort of entitlement mentality that is flushing the USA down the toilet.

Morbid obesity is caused by overeating. McDonald's doesn't force people to overeat. If all fast food establishments disappeared tomorrow, the rate of morbid obesity would not decline.

Click to expand...

No, it is the liberal mindset concerning choice, enabling, accountability and responsibility that is sending the USA down the toilet.

Who is just talking about “morbid obesity”? *Reference post #31 in the FF tread for a reply to your repeated rhetorical dogma. My paragraph you quoted asked for thought about the contents while looking through the rhetoric and you come back with not addressing any of it but just an unspecific accusation and go into a new rhetorical premise. I do believe my point has been made concerning your logic and form of argument.

Reference post #31 in the FF tread for a reply to your repeated rhetorical dogma.

Click to expand...

That's a laugh. When you make implications that all fast food is categorically bad, that the fast food industry as a whole cannot be trusted, that the ingredient labels must be assumed to be deceptive, and than anyone who thinks differently is a "friend" of fast food, it's clear that the rhetorical dogma is yours and yours alone.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

The liberal mindset concerning choice is one which blames the fast food industry for one's eating choices. The conservative mindset is one which blames the consumer for the eating choices s/he makes.

That's a laugh. When you make implications that all fast food is categorically bad, that the fast food industry as a whole cannot be trusted, that the ingredient labels must be assumed to be deceptive, and than anyone who thinks differently is a "friend" of fast food, it's clear that the rhetorical dogma is yours and yours alone.

Click to expand...

Your reliance on the “all or nothing” fallacy is what is laughable. The attempt to categorize my usage and meaning of “liberal mindset” into some kind of political stereotypical comparison by the use of contrasting “conservative” is ridiculous and totally and most likely either intentionally avoiding the statement of concern or unintentionally because of your preoccupation with political reasoning. Sorry now I used the word “liberal” and will not go into political debate here. I avaoid that forum for a reason.

Let me ask you a comparison question concerning responsibility: It is a person’s choice if he takes harmful drugs and it causes damage to that person. Does the one who sells him the drugs share in any responsibility for the damage that has happened to that person?

It is a person’s choice if he takes harmful drugs and it causes damage to that person.

Click to expand...

To compare dietary consumption with drug abuse is apples and skyscrapers. That said, if a person uses drugs irresponsibly, that person is responsible. Likewise, if a person uses food irresponsibly, that person is guilty.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

I happen to agree with both of you. Fast food is crap. It's bad for your health, when consumed regularly and in excess. The additives aren't good for you, either. But each individual decides for themselves what they will and will not consume. To say any otherwise is to lack personal responsibility.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

I happen to agree with both of you. Fast food is crap. It's bad for your health, when consumed regularly and in excess. The additives aren't good for you, either. But each individual decides for themselves what they will and will not consume. To say any otherwise is to lack personal responsibility.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

To compare dietary consumption with drug abuse is apples and skyscrapers. That said, if a person uses drugs irresponsibly, that person is responsible. Likewise, if a person uses food irresponsibly, that person is guilty.

Click to expand...

Originally posted by Benjamin:Let me ask you a comparison question concerning responsibility: It is a person’s choice if he takes harmful drugs and it causes damage to that person. Does the one who sells him the drugs share in any responsibility for the damage that has happened to that person?

Click to expand...

Ever heard of the logical fallacy called a “weaseler”??? Try that shoe on next to the other they match should match just fine.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

I happen to agree with both of you. Fast food is crap. It's bad for your health, when consumed regularly and in excess. The additives aren't good for you, either. But each individual decides for themselves what they will and will not consume. To say any otherwise is to lack personal responsibility.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's unhealthy junk food, as the documentary shows even while eating everything on the menu for 3 squares a day will probably kill you in a relatively short time. Considering the extreme where the guy might have eaten up to 5000 calories a day by eating regular menu items, just one day gives 2 1/2 times the calories one should have so I don't think it would have to be all that regular to be in serious excess and that is a big part of the problem.

I don't believe any normal person could eat 5000 calories a day of the type of food I eat, but even if they could manage it, other than getting fat I don't believe the other compounding health issues would be there.

I certainly believe in personal responsibilty and haven't said other wise, (not saying you suggested that), but I do not disregard the responsibilty of the fast food industry as an enabler that supplies that garbage while being motivated to form habits in our children (who eat there at an ever increasing rate) by marketing play houses and good ole Ronald to them in an effort to establish these habits.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

One doesn't have to take their children to visit Ronald. One doesn't have to watch TV. It's all about personal choices. Sure, the food is crap. I don't disagree. But you don't HAVE to eat it.

In my country of residence, there are billboards everywhere for Flirt Vodka. The women are beautiful. The men seem to enjoy drinking it and shooting pool. Everyone is smiling. Or laughing. They look like happy, intelligent people---who happen to enjoy drinking Flirt Vodka. No, they don't show you the drunk laying in his own vomit---that wouldn't be good marketing. But it is still my choice as to whether or not I partake in Flirt Vodka. Do I like their billboards? No. Do I think they should show them when they are misleading? No. But because they have a legal right to do it, my preference is moot. I don't have to support them, however. And that is my legal right.

Does McDonalds show commercials with obese people? No. Do they show pictures of clogged arteries? LOL! No. They want to sell their goods. It's their legal right. Misleading? Perhaps. But most marketing is. But McDonalds is not forcing anyone to eat their food. People can still say NO.

I hope this post made sense. While writing it I had to stop and help a few of the kids with their Math.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Not so. A Big Mac, large fries and iced tea is less than 900 calories. An Egg McMuffin, hash browns, and coffee is less than 450 calories. A Big Mac Combo for lunch and also dinner, and an Egg McMuffin Combo for breakfast would make my daily caloric intake less than 2300 calories. That's within the normal 2k-3k caloric intake range of an average healthy person.

I certainly believe in personal responsibilty and haven't said other wise

Click to expand...

No, you don't. You believe that what a person chooses to eat is not entirely his/her own responsibility.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Not so. A Big Mac, large fries and iced tea is less than 900 calories. An Egg McMuffin, hash browns, and coffee is less than 450 calories. A Big Mac Combo for lunch and also dinner, and an Egg McMuffin Combo for breakfast would make my daily caloric intake less than 2300 calories. That's within the normal 2k-3k caloric intake range of an average healthy person.

Click to expand...

In your midly selected menu, which was also very conspicuously careful to avoid any sugar, 1,130 of those calories come from fat and the balance is pathetically empty while containing a whopping 3,910 mg of sodium. Twice the daily recommended intake of fat. Undeniably a very unhealthy diet.

No, you don't. You believe that what a person chooses to eat is not entirely his/her own responsibility.

Click to expand...

I believe by your obviously biased and purposely neglectful reasoning it can be concluded that all drug pushers should not be held accountable because all drug users choose what to take and it is entirely his/her responsibility.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

In your midly selected menu, which was also very conspicuously careful to avoid any sugar...

Click to expand...

A Big Mac, Fries, and Iced Tea is "mildly selected"? That's a rather common seelction. But, for the sake of argument, let's say a person orders a Big Mac combo with a soda instead of iced tea. That increases the meal by 200 calories. If you have orange juice instead of coffee for breakfast, that increases the breakfast caloric intake by about 50 calories.

That puts the daily caloric intake at about 2750 calories. Although on the high end, that's within the normal 2k-3k caloric intake range of an average healthy person. It's not anywhere near the "2 1/2 times the calories one should have" claim which you made. Your claim is obviously false.

But wait, let's see what other claims of yours are false: You claimed "1,130 of those calories come from fat", and that it's "Twice the daily recommended intake of fat". Is it?

A daily intake of two Big Mac combos with Cokes, and an Egg McMuffin combo with orange juice actually comes to approx 1050 calories from fat. That puts the daily fat percentage at 38%. A normal healthy diet will have a fat content of between 25% and 35%. It's indeed high enough to be of a warning, and most definitely beyond the nutritionally recommended daily allowance rate (by about 50%). But it's not near the "twice the daily recommended" amount as you claim. Your claim here, like the one above, is obviously false.

Next, you said "the balance is pathetically empty".
A meal as described as above will give you about 25% of your recommended Vitamin A, 40% of Vitamin C, 40% of Calcium, and over 80% of Iron. Not what one could call "well balanced", but not "pathetically empty" either. Your claim here is quite questionable.

Next, you said such a diet "contains a whopping 3,910 mg of sodium." Close. It's about 3800. The National Academy of Sciences puts sodium intake between approx 1500-3500mg as reasonable for the average American. A McDonald's diet listed above is out of the level of reasonable, but not by as much as you claim. Your claim here is questionable, but only somewhat. (BTW, the average American consumes a whopping 5000+ mg of sodium per day).

I believe by your obviously biased and purposely neglectful reasoning it can be concluded that all drug pushers should not be held accountable because all drug users choose what to take and it is entirely his/her responsibility.

Click to expand...

Again, comparing a restauranteur to a drug pusher is a ridiculous argument. The fact that you can't see the stupidity of that argument demonstrates your own bias.

As for my bias, I'm looking at the objective numbers. You've made a lot of broadbrush claims that just don't stand up to the facts. But numbers aside, the bottom line is that it is the food consumer who is responsible for what and how much he eats.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Originally posted by Benjamin:I believe by your obviously biased and purposely neglectful reasoning it can be concluded that all drug pushers should not be held accountable because all drug users choose what to take and it is entirely his/her responsibility.

Click to expand...

Originally posted by JohnV:As for my bias, I'm looking at the objective numbers.

Click to expand...

Lets see:

Originally posted by JohnV:You've made a lot of broadbrush claims that just don't stand up to the facts.

Click to expand...

Originally posted by Benjamin:In your midly selected menu, which was also very conspicuously careful to avoid any sugar, 1,130 of those calories come from fat and the balance is pathetically empty while containing a whopping 3,910 mg of sodium. Twice the daily recommended intake of fat. Undeniably a very unhealthy diet.

Originally posted by JohnV:(BTW, the average American consumes a whopping 5000+ mg of sodium per day).

Click to expand...

BTW, the average American is overweight, out of shape, and facing premature senescence, various related diseases etc. You simply prove my point how unhealthy it is while using a lot of hot air rhetoric.

Originally posted by JohnV:Again, comparing a restauranteur to a drug pusher is a ridiculous argument.

Click to expand...

Simple Ad Hominem, serves no purpose in drawing out the truth/Philosophical logic 101.

Originally posted by JohnV:The fact that you can't see the stupidity of that argument demonstrates your own bias.

Click to expand...

Simple Ad Hominem, serves no purpose in drawing out the truth/Philosophical logic 101.

Originally posted by JohnV:But numbers aside, the bottom line is that it is the food consumer who is responsible for what and how much he eats.

Click to expand...

Avoids the argument about reasoning in any logical sense, nothing more than extensive use of a “weaseler”.

Originally posted by Benjamin:I believe by your obviously biased and purposely neglectful reasoning it can be concluded that all drug pushers should not be held accountable because all drug users choose what to take and it is entirely his/her responsibility.

Click to expand...

A McDonalds’ diet is unhealthy and harmful; to neglect that fact and assign no accountability or responsibility whatsoever can only rely on flawed, untruthful, and desperate illogical reasoning and must contain motive.

Avoids the argument about reasoning in any logical sense, nothing more than extensive use of a “weaseler”.

Click to expand...

Nice try, but if you look at the numbers, your claims dont' add up. So, like I said, if you put the number's aside, you'll see that yours claims still don't add up. I even went to the length of substituting iced tea and coffee with orange juice and coke to inflate the caloric numbers in your favor, and they still don't support you.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

This debate really isn’t going anywhere with you, John. But you take care and try to go easy on those Big Macs.

Eating less and moving more is only part of the battle and I like to go into more depth than that concerning good physical fitness lifestyle habits and to promote better health and awareness. With that in mind, I would ask you to please not take the contrary every time I go beyond the “Golden Rule” (eating less and moving more) of better health for sake of argument. It would make for nothing but ugly and/or result in a boring new forum with only argument happening over any greater depth.

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!